Ray Mark Rinaldi suggests art museums, instead of naming galleries for big donors, permit donors to borrow valuable paintings to decorate their homes for parties. This should work fine until an inebriated guest throws cabernet on a Rothko while shouting, “Nothing rocks like red on red!”

Gary Michael, Denver

This letter was published in the Nov. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

OK, if Mr. Bigwig creates the Bigwig Wing of Screamingly Modern Art for the local art museum to house art works by Munch and others, then anyone who pays admission can see the art work.
But, if Mr. Bigwig donates a bunch o’ money to view the Munch, then he and his pals see it exclusively, and gloat over the little people.
What is wrong with this picture?
Does wealth have to define everything about this country?

ThePyro

I’m definitely buying into this donate-big-and-take-museum-stuff-home program. If you don’t already know where I live, it’ll be the place with a Grumman F-14A Tomcat sitting on the front lawn.

A better place for it would be at 25,000 ft. over your local airport. Trust me… it’s the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

ThePyro

I dunno…I’ve not had the luck to be in an F-14, but have gone up in an F/A-18E and the only two-seat A-10 in existence (amongst a few others). The Thunderbolt II (I refuse to call it a Warthog!) may not be the aircraft a lot of the front-line fighters are…but until I somehow get time in a Tomcat, that’s on top of my list.

Papa Smurf

F-14A = Vintage muscle car. Say Plymouth Super Bird, circa 1970.
F/A-18E = Ferrari. Light weight, quick, and incredibly agile.
Of the two, you probably got the better ride. I started out in the F-4N Phantom II — proof positive that if you use big enough engines you can make a cinder block fly. Transitioned to the F/A-18C in ’87… that was like going from NASCAR to Formula I. And even the A-10 drivers call it the “Warthog”… they take great, and perverse pride in that.

peterpi

“proof positive that if you use big enough engines you can make a cinder block fly.”
Now, that’s funny.
But it seems to be the same thought behind some SUVs, like the early Ford Explorer. Put enough power behind it, and you can move a brick at 70 MPH. Aerodynamic co-efficient? We don’t need no stinkin’ aerodynamic co-efficient!
How long was the F-4 in service? Did you serve in Viet Nam?

Papa Smurf

At least as far as the Marine Corps was concerned, we received the first F-4’s (the “B-mod”) in the mid 60’s… and the last ones left service in the ’88 to ’89 timeframe. Wasn’t the best design… It was originally meant to be an interceptor for the Air Farce, so it was built for top-end speed. It didn’t even have an internal gun. The designers thought we’d be in an all-missile environment against the Soviets. Little did they know. They later designed an add-on gun pod which mounted on the centerline belly hard points, but it never really worked out very well. OK for air-to-mud gun runs, but pretty much useless in the fur-ball. I did, indeed, serve in Vietnam, but as an enlisted helicopter Crew Chief (UH-1E’s). Didn’t move up to the front seat until the late 70’s.

peterpi

Thank you for your service.

ThePyro

I grew up outside Baltimore, not significantly far from the Fairchild Republic plant that designed and built the first A-10s, and where some family friends and relatives worked. Those folks eschewed the Warthog name…and out of respect, I tend to stick with ’em.

I don’t often hear the Phantom II getting dissed, especially from a naval aviator, but I’m not surprised. I have an old report from the USAF where they pitted an F-100D, F-104C, F-105D and F-4C against an F-86H. To my surprise, the F-4C was considered the worst of the bunch…against an aging Sabre flown by an Air National Guard pilot!

As pete said – Thank You for your service!

Papa Smurf

No dis to the Phantom… I loved it. A “bad guy’s” view of the Phantom on his six (the head-on profile) might have been the most evil and intimidating sight in all of tactical aviation. If anything, I was just illustrating the profound difference between that and the Hornet. But the F/A-18 had it’s drawbacks, too. In the F-4, you were the pilot, period. In the “Bug,” with all the automated systems and “crew assistance” functions, I often felt less like an “aviator,” and more like a voting member of the aircraft :o)

Dano2

I was a weatherman back in the day, stationed at a cold war base with an anti-aircraft missile battery. There used to be a lot of strafing runs from the UN countries on that battery, and when I was in the tower it was outstanding duty when they came in, as the planes used to use the tower’s radar shadow to “sneak” up on the target.

At any rate, you could stand on the catwalk and feel the thud of the shockwaves in your body from the planes as they broke off behind the tower’s radar shadow. The remaining flying F4s that came in would hit you like a brick wall and were much too loud for stealth ops. We used to call their head-on profile “cinder block” and, compared to every other plane flew like water balloons.

Thanks for the flashback, Smurf.

Best,

D

peterpi

Gad, now you’re tying into one of my “What if I were fabulously wealthy” fantasies:
A surplus Air Force fighter jet, made unable to perform combat tasks, made completely civilian “street legal”, but with as much of the avionics as the Air Force will begrudgingly permit (they might let me keep the compass and altimeter, I suppose) and still capable of full flight speed — over the nearest ocean. I’m not sure if a civilian aircraft can legally exceed Mach 1 over the continental USA.
The Air Force wouldn’t permit me to enlist and play with its toys. Flat feet. Bleeding disorder. Cerebral Palsy ** sigh **

Papa Smurf

You pretty well described the aircraft the Blue Angels (sorry, not as familiar with the Thunderbirds) fly… F/A-18C’s near the end of their service life. They take out the 20mm chain gun and use that space for the smoke tanks and smoke generators. The acquisition and fire control radars are removed to reduce weight… you could mount your own weather radar in that compartment. Finally, they remove all the wing hard points (pylons) to reduce parasitic drag. Take out any classified comm gear, and presto, you’ve got your very own street-legal aerial hot-rod. And yes, you can exceed Mach I in a civilian aircraft over the continental United States— ONCE!

peterpi

LOL
So, I’d have weather radar.
I bet there are companies making civilian GPS units for aircraft. Same with landing approach hardware and software.
I suppose I’d have to pack light.
The F/A-18 isn’t exactly noted for its baggage compartment. No overhead carry-on bins, either.
Strictly a vehicle to use for joy rides, LOL

Robtf777

“Lend museum paintings to big donors?”
===============
Whatever a PRIVATELY owned museum wishes to do with any artwork that belongs to it……is up to it. If they wish to name wings of buildings or entire buildings or lend out their works of art……that is strictly up to them.

But when it comes to PUBLICLY owned museums……those supported by Tax Dollars in whole or great part…….as part of an actual or pseudo-government entity……the issue becomes “WHO” the works of art actually belongs to.

If the works of art belong to “The Government” and “we the people” as a “public trust” ……then any suggestion of “loaning out” works of art to benefit “private parties” at the expense of “the general public” who may visit those museums only to find……blank spaces…….would be akin, in some people’s thinking, to the s-called “Lexus Lanes” on “public freeways.”

Do things that belong to “The Government” and “we the people” and “the general public”……as part of an actual or pseudo-government entity……exist for the benefit of ALL OF US……of for the benefit of the Rich, the Famous, and the Few who are Rich and Famous for their personal enjoyment whenever they want it…..at the expense of those of us who can be considered……”third class citizens.”

mrfxx

Do you complain about the almost free leases the ski resorts and ranchers and even big oil and gas corporations get on Federal lands (which therefore belong to “we the people”) – and if not, WHY NOT?

Dano2

It appears likely that Detroit’s excellent art will be parted out for scrap and transferred to private hands. One would hope this would assuage some of the snatch ‘n’ grab going on at the top, but I doubt it.

We should resist our public art being an ego item in a rich person’s home at all costs.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...